ARTICLES SUPREME COURT LAW CLERKS RECOLLECTIONS OF BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION

ARTICLES SUPREME COURT LAW CLERKS RECOLLECTIONS OF BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION JOHN DAVID FASSETT EARL E. POLLOCK E. BARRETT PRETTYMAN, JR. FRANK E.A. SANDER MODERATED BY JOHN Q. BARRETT INTRODUCTION On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States decided in Brown v. Board of Education that state and federal laws segregating public school children by race were unconstitutional. 1 In Brown, which actually is the name of just one of the five lower court decisions on school segregation that the Supreme Court reviewed 50 years ago, 2 Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for a Supreme Court that was unanimous. The Professor of Law, St. John s University School of Law, New York City, and Elizabeth S. Lenna Fellow, Robert H. Jackson Center, Jamestown, NY (www.roberthjackson.org). Introduction 2004 by John Q. Barrett. I am grateful to my research assistant Lauren DiFilippo for her work on this transcript. 1 See Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 2 The Brown decision and opinion actually covers and resolves four cases that arose from states: No. 1, Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. [Kansas]; No. 2, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al. [South Carolina]; No. 4, Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al.; and No. 10, Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al. [Delaware]. A fifth case, No. 8, Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al., arose from the federal government s District of Columbia and was decided and explained, as Brown s companion, in a separate opinion by Chief Justice Warren for the unanimous Court. See 347 U.S. 497. 515

516 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW [Vol.78:515 Court in Brown explicitly rejected its own almost 60-year-old precedent approving separate but equal public institutions and facilities for persons of differing races. 3 Brown is generally regarded as among the most, if not as itself the most, significant Supreme Court decision in United States history. 4 The Justices of the Supreme Court recognized, during the two Terms in which they considered Brown and its companion school segregation cases, that the issues they raised were, in much of the United States, extremely controversial. The Justices therefore agreed among themselves not to discuss their deliberations on these cases with others not even their own law clerks. As a result, most of the thirty-six young lawyers who worked as law clerks at the Supreme Court during its 1952 and 1953 Terms were not privy to very much of the Justices thinking, work, discussions and draft opinions concerning school segregation the legal and human processes that actually produced the Brown decision. But few total secrecy systems actually live up to their ideal, and this one had exceptions. On April 28, 2004, the Robert H. Jackson Center in Jamestown, New York, 5 assembled, for a group discussion, four former Supreme Court law clerks: John David Fassett, Earl E. Pollock, E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr. and Frank E.A. Sander. These attorneys had been, fifty years earlier and to varying degrees, in the loop of the Justices thinking about and deciding of Brown v. Board of Education. After leaving their Supreme Court clerkships (two of them just a month or two after the 3 See Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). 4 For some of the best recent measures of Brown s significance, see CLARE CUSHMAN & MELVIN I. UROFSKY, EDS., BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN: THE LANDMARK SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE IN RETROSPECT (2004); DERRICK BELL, SILENT COVENANTS: BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE UNFULFILLED HOPES FOR RACIAL REFORM (2004); MICHAEL J. KLARMAN, FROM JIM CROW TO CIVIL RIGHTS: THE SUPREME COURT AND THE STRUGGLE FOR RACIAL EQUALITY (2004); CHARLES J. OGLETREE, JR., ALL DELIBERATE SPEED: REFLECTIONS ON THE FIRST HALF CENTURY OF BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION (2004); NORMAN I. SILBER, WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED: THE LIFE OF PHILIP ELMAN, AN ORAL HISTORY MEMOIR (2004); JAMES T. PATTERSON, BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION: A CIVIL RIGHTS MILESTONE AND ITS TROUBLED LEGACY (2001). 5 The Robert H. Jackson Center is named after and dedicated to the life, work, words and legacy of Justice Jackson (1892-1954). See www.roberthjackson.org. Jackson was one of the nine Justices serving on the Supreme Court as it considered and decided Brown and its companion cases during October Terms 1952 and 1953.

2004] LAW CLERKS RECALL BROWN 517 Brown decision), these men built distinguished careers in different cities and generally did not see each other or keep in touch. Although they were interviewed individually over the years about Brown by historians and others, 6 these former law clerks did not, until this discussion, gather as a group and share, compare and assemble their recollections against the backdrop of years of personal and societal experience and much historical scholarship and analysis of Brown. The result, on April 28 th of this year and now in this publication, 7 is an extraordinary and unprecedented discussion. The participants, who are the most knowledgeable insiders who still are in positions to guide us, explain how the Justices of the Supreme Court came to decide Brown v. Board of Education as they did, individually and as a Court. This discussion is the best first-person account (to date) of the decision making process inside the Court. The discussion illuminates particularly well the process and chronology of developments by which Chief Justice Warren wrote his Brown opinion and other Justices decided not to write separately and also not to dissent, resulting in the unanimous Court of May 17, 1954. BIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND ON THE PARTICIPANTS John David Fassett, a graduate of the University of Rochester and Yale Law School, is the retired CEO and Chairman of the Board of United Illuminating Company in New Haven, Connecticut. He began to work as a law clerk to Justice Stanley F. Reed in June 1953 and served through the Supreme Court s October Term 1953. 6 The leading history of Brown is RICHARD KLUGER, SIMPLE JUSTICE: THE HISTORY OF BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION AND BLACK AMERICA S STRUGGLE FOR EQUALITY (1975; updated ed. 2004). At various times in 1971 and 1974, Kluger interviewed Fassett, Pollock, Prettyman and Sander individually for what became SIMPLE JUSTICE. 7 The participants in the April 28, 2004, Jackson Center discussion lightly edited their remarks for this publication. Their discussion was taped and rebroadcast in two parts on C-SPAN s America and the Courts program on June 12 and 19, 2004. These programs are now available for viewing in a streaming video format on C-SPAN s website (www.cspan.com) and also can be purchased from C- SPAN on video and CD-ROM.

518 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW [Vol.78:515 Earl E. Pollock, a graduate of the University of Minnesota and the Northwestern University School of Law, retired in 1992 from his partnership in the Chicago law firm of law firm of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. He became a law clerk to Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson in summer 1953 and, following the Chief Justice s sudden death that September, a law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren for the Supreme Court s October Terms 1953 and 1954. E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., a graduate of Yale University and the University of Virginia School of Law, is Of Counsel to Hogan & Hartson in Washington, D.C. He served as Justice Robert H. Jackson s law clerk during the Supreme Court s October Terms 1953 and 1954 and, upon the Justice s death in October 1954, clerked for Associate Justices Felix Frankfurter and John M. Harlan, successively, during the remainder of the 1954 Term. Frank E.A. Sander, a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, is Harvard s Bussey Professor of Law and Director of the Harvard Law School Program on Dispute Resolution. He was a law clerk to Justice Felix Frankfurter during the Supreme Court s October Term 1953. THE ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION Good morning. My name is John Barrett. I am a Professor of Law at St. John s University in New York City and the Elizabeth S. Lenna Fellow here at the Robert H. Jackson Center in Jamestown, New York. The Robert H. Jackson Center is named after and dedicated to the life, work, words and legacy of Robert H. Jackson. Born in 1892, Jackson was a native of northwestern Pennsylvania. In the private sector phase of his life, Jackson was a lawyer here in this community of Jamestown for twenty years (1913-33). In 1934, Jackson went to Washington. Rising through the

2004] LAW CLERKS RECALL BROWN 519 Roosevelt Administration, he became the Solicitor General of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States and, beginning in 1941, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, where he served for the remaining thirteen years of his life except for one year away as the chief American prosecutor before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany following World War II. Justice Jackson was one of the nine Justices serving on the Supreme Court during the Terms 1952 and 1953 as it considered the case and rendered the decision that we commemorate this spring on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary, Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. The Brown case actually consisted of five cases, four cases arising from states and one case arising from the District of Columbia, which of course is a federal entity, not a state. The four states involved were Kansas, which had the lead billing, and thus gives us Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka as the title we use. The other state cases came from Virginia, South Carolina and Delaware. The Supreme Court, in the Brown case, on May 17, 1954, ended segregation of school children, by law, according to race. It did so in the name of the 14 th Amendment, which had been ratified following the Civil War and which guarantees to all persons the equal protection of the laws. What the Supreme Court unanimously decided that May 17 th, fifty years ago, was that equal protection means that segregation by law has no place in elementary and secondary school education. The Court s decision in Brown was the start of legal desegregation in America and the start of the process of racial integration in America, which of course has proven to be an extremely difficult, complex and unfinished project

520 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW [Vol.78:515 for our society. But for that start, we gather here today to commemorate and give credit to the Supreme Court. The nine Justices of course are no longer with us, but we are privileged to have with us four of the law clerks who worked in private, in confidence, for four of the Justices who participated in the Court s deciding of the Brown case in May 1954. The law clerks, who are with me today, are introduced at length in your materials.... These gentlemen are both protagonists and representatives in our conversation this morning. They are protagonists because each of them was involved, in his own way, in the Court s work that emerged in public on May 17, 1954 as Brown v. Board of Education. But they also are here as representatives, as proxies, for the Justices who were their employers. As each of these men left law school, he got one of the most coveted opportunities for a young lawyer entering the work force: a clerkship with a Supreme Court Justice. I would like to begin by asking each of them to simply introduce the boss and describe what that meant whom they were arriving to work for as they arrived at the Supreme Court in the summer of 1953. So Earl Pollock, tell us about Chief Justice Fred Vinson. I arrived at the Supreme Court in June 1953 to become Vinson s law clerk. Unfortunately, I did not have much of an opportunity to discuss much in the way of law with him because this was the summer period and in early September, just two days after my wife and I had given him a lift home to his apartment, he died very suddenly and as a

2004] LAW CLERKS RECALL BROWN 521 result, my tenure with Chief Justice Vinson was quite brief. Give us little sense of his background. Where was he from, in terms of region, and what was his career trajectory that led him to become Chief Justice? Vinson had come from Kentucky. He had been Secretary of the Treasury, appointed by President Harry Truman, with whom he was very friendly. He served on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was elevated from Treasury to the Chief Justiceship of the United States. Jack Fassett, in terms of seniority, Stanley Reed was, among the Justices represented here, the senior Associate Justice. As you arrived from Yale to be a law clerk, who was Stanley Reed and what did it mean to be going to work for him? Stanley Reed had been born in 1884, in Minerva, Kentucky, a small town outside of Maysville. He had been a country lawyer there and represented tobacco cooperatives until he was persuaded to come to Washington by the Hoover Administration to work as General Counsel for the Federal Farm Board and then for the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which also was a Hoover entity. He stayed on when Franklin Roosevelt won his first term and ended up being made Solicitor General and having the dubious honor of being the Solicitor General who argued all the early New Deal cases, the so-called sick chicken case, and the A.A.A. case, and all those other ones involving the New Deal statutes that were struck down by the old Supreme Court. Stanley Reed was F.D.R. s second appointment to the Court Hugo Black was the

522 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW [Vol.78:515 first and there was a little furor when he was appointed about some of his background and Stanley Reed, I guess, was deemed to be a safer appointment. He was a country gentleman, a very kind and nice gentleman who had a cosmopolitan education. He had been brought up in Maysville by a father who was a doctor and his mother died at a very early age. But he had gone to Kentucky Wesleyan University and gotten a degree there. He then applied to Yale University; Yale recognized his Kentucky Wesleyan degree for a year of credit; he ultimately became a graduate in the class of 1906 at Yale and then he went to law school at Virginia and Columbia and then off to Paris and studied at the Sorbonne An upward march. Yes, and then he came back to Maysville to practice. Now Frank Sander, let me turn to you. It certainly can t be the case that each member of the Court was from Kentucky. Who was Felix Frankfurter and what did it mean to be arriving as Felix Frankfurter s law clerk? Sander: Well, about as far from Kentucky as you can think of: he was from Vienna that is Austria, not Virginia. [Laughter] He was a very complex person, hard to capsule in a short profile: very interested in the world of ideas, endless interest in the world of people. I think he wrote more letters and received more letters than anybody that I know of. Corresponded with just about everybody, didn t he? Sander: Absolutely. And I think at Harvard Law School, I guess, he was very much revered because he

2004] LAW CLERKS RECALL BROWN 523 graduated Harvard Law School and then was in the government some and then came back to teach and was a long-time faculty member at Harvard Law School. He made an arrangement with one of the professors at Harvard Law School that he would select his two law clerks each year from people who had worked in the lower courts, so people who got this opportunity were very lucky. They knew something he wasn t as much of a mystery for us when we went down to Washington because we knew the prior law clerks. With very few exceptions, they were all Harvard law school graduates, which was perhaps a mistake, but it was just Frankfurter s simple way of trying to preserve continuity and get people who were known very well to the recommender. So he didn t have what people do these days people writing endless letters to nine Justices to try and get a clerkship. In those days with Frankfurter it was quite different. I think the other thing that was extraordinary about him, he had no children, so his law clerks really were part of his family and there was a very close relationship between us and the Justice. He and I were very interested in classical music and it wouldn t be unusual for him at eleven o clock at night to call me up and say, I just heard this concert by X, Y or Z. What do you think about this person? That was not atypical. So, Frankfurter was a complex person who was, I sometimes say, alternatively exasperating and exhilarating to work for. Barrett Prettyman, you also later had that opportunity, but your longest clerkship, and your initial clerkship, was with Robert Jackson. As you arrived in that summer of 1953, who was Robert Jackson as a Justice of the Court?

524 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW [Vol.78:515 Sander: Well, before I arrived, as a member of the Legal Forum at Virginia Law School, I had had him down to speak and spent a delightful weekend with him down there, where I really got to know him even though it was a very abbreviated time. And then when I went up for my interview with him in Washington, we had a very wonderful long chat, less about the law than just about theory and life and whatever. And at the end of the interview he said, You know we are allowed two clerks, but I don t want two clerks. I only want one clerk and if you would be willing to be my only clerk, well, you can have the job. Immediately, of course, I accepted, so that was the end of that. I had not been with an intermediate appellate judge and therefore was absolutely delighted to be able to go directly from law school into this place on the Hill. So you had no training and twice the responsibility of Frank Sander? You got it. But not twice the pay. No. What was it, $5,400 in those days? Sander: $6,000. Well, then you got more than I did. That s where that first clerkship had a benefit. Now, let s talk about the school segregation cases. The five cases came to the Court before you gentlemen arrived. The Court actually took a while to docket them and put them all in motion, but they had been argued to the Court in December of 1952. And then in June of 1953, very shortly before you arrived, the Court ordered them reargued, calling for additional briefing on a long

2004] LAW CLERKS RECALL BROWN 525 list of topics that the Court asked the parties to research and write for the Court s benefit. So segregation in many forms had been percolating towards the Court, and in the graduate school and law school context it had been dealt with by the Court, and the Court was in the midst of grappling with it, as you arrived, in the elementary and secondary context. Again let s begin with Earl Pollock. How did you get oriented to what we today call Brown v. Board of Education as a pending matter? I became involved directly with the case after Chief Justice Warren arrived in September. Let s stay earlier. Was there any contact during the Vinson phase? There was none that summer, except that among the clerks who were already there, there was tremendous excitement and interest in the pending segregation cases, and a lot of discussion about it. The cases were, of course, recognized as constituting the most important issue before the Court at that time. Was there discussion with your departing predecessors, for any of you, about this pending case and what was happening in the Court that you were now arriving in the middle of? If there was, I ve managed to forget after fifty years. One of my great regrets is that I never kept a diary or a journal, which would have been very useful trying to answer questions like that today. Jack, how about you? I did have a discussion with the one former Term clerk who was still there when I arrived on June

526 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW [Vol.78:515 20, 1953. The order for the reargument, the questions that you talked about, came down on June 8 th and then immediately thereafter the Court had two special sessions in the Rosenberg case, involving the stay of the execution of the Rosenbergs. It had been very acrimonious, and it was just over on June 19 th. I arrived on the next day and the one law clerk still left from the prior Term had an assignment from Justice Reed to do a project having to do with a possible dissent in the segregation cases, and so I did talk to him about that. I saw the Justice for about a half an hour before he took off from there. He was going off to Duke Medical Center, where he had his annual exam, and then to Maysville, Kentucky where he had a couple of farms. And he said he d be seeing me and we d talk at the end of August or he d see me when he came back through, going off to a place he d rented up in New York State, in Oyster Bay, New York, for the month of August. But we didn t have too much time to talk and all he d said to me was, Are you up to date on the school segregation cases? He had not mentioned the subject at all at the time I was hired. I said, I ve heard of them, but I don t know much about them. I also didn t know much about him. When I had the lightning strike of getting the clerkship, I didn t know much about Justice Reed and was able to find very little. But he said to me as he was leaving, Well, on these shelves over there are all the records and briefs in the cases. In your spare time, get yourself up to date on them. And so that was the total talk with him about it, and then the clerk who was there filled me in on the job he was doing. But he didn t have too much handle on what had happened at the Court with respect to them because they were being pretty secretive with most

2004] LAW CLERKS RECALL BROWN 527 of the law clerks about what was going on. And then I started getting these letters from Justice Reed, first from Durham, then from Maysville, then from Oyster Bay, sending me these projects And when he came back through, we had a whole long conversation about them, but that s getting ahead of the story. Sander: Right. Frank, how about you? Well, I, like Earl, I m not quite sure about this, about whether I had any conversations with one of our predecessors, Alex Bickel. His is an important name in the Brown history because one of the unusual things about Frankfurter is that he didn t use his clerks for routine work, like the certiorari petitions, whether the Supreme Court ought to take a case he handled those himself, but he would assign major tasks to people that really required full concentration for an extended period. And related to the questions for the rehearing, he had asked his prior clerk, Alex Bickel, to make an investigation of the legislative history of the 14 th Amendment to see what light he d shed on desegregation. In the end, it turned out not much. But being a professor and scholar, Frankfurter wanted to leave no stone unturned. So this was in process and I don t know whether I talked with Alex Bickel about this, but we were certainly very aware of that event. From Jack s description of his predecessor writing or doing research for Reed on an expected dissent, it sounds like the climate you re arriving in is one where school segregation is losing it s going to be struck down? I had no indication of that. When I finally had had my long conversation with Justice Reed when he came through at the end of July on his way from Maysville to Oyster Bay, I asked him, Well, is the

528 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW [Vol.78:515 Court going to decide these cases now? And he said, They are going to decide them. They ve got the votes. But the indication was that the decision was going to be to strike down Plessy v. Ferguson. And he and some others were going to be in a minority. But he didn t identify who they were going to be. But we had a big argument about it and that s the stage where I learned that long word krytocracy, because I said, Well aren t they going to be reaching the right decision? I think that sounds like and he said to me, Are you one of those people who believes in krytocracy? I said, What does that mean? And he referred me to a book or paper that he had there and showed me that krytocracy means government by judges. And it was the beginning of a very long dialogue that we had over a period of several months, where we had a very interesting time as he thought over the process of whether he was going to dissent or not, and krytocracy was foremost in his mind, that he didn t quite think that this was a role that the judges ought to play. Barrett, as you were arriving and replacing two clerks all by your lonesome, did you get any transition briefing or any sense of where segregation stood with the Court? I don t recall any discussions with Bill Rehnquist or Don Cronson about the segregation cases. And I was not aware of their now-famous memos that they wrote. But the only discussions I had with the Justice gave me the impression that the Court was in somewhat of a disarray. But it was not clear to me, and I m not sure it was clear to him, where the votes actually lay because the Justices, at their one conference, had decided not to take a vote. Unbeknownst to me, not that long thereafter in fact, the day before the second

2004] LAW CLERKS RECALL BROWN 529 argument in Brown he began writing a concurring opinion because he assumed that regardless of how the vote went, the Justices either would all be writing or many of them would, that there would be dissents and concurrences and so forth, so he was trying to get his thoughts down on paper. I didn t see that draft of a concurring opinion until four drafts later when he finally gave it to me. Sander: We will catch up to that point of the story. Does anyone deserve credit for the decision to request additional briefing and the postponement of deciding it at the end of that 1952 Term? Was that Frankfurter and Bickel? Was that Vinson? Any light to shed on that? I don t know definitely, but I would suspect both from the nature of the inquiry and what I ve read that it was largely Frankfurter, but it was not Bickel. It was Frankfurter commissioning Bickel to do this and then persuading the Court to go along. One of his main concerns was the whole theme of judicial restraint, the issue that Jack referred to, so I think putting the thing off because it was a difficult decision and getting more research seems very much in character for him. I think it was Except for a couple of the Justices who were anxious to go ahead and have the vote, most of them felt that it would be desirable to have more time. I think Justice Clark and Justice Reed I think, Justice Jackson as well, concurred in that. So what they needed was a device to do it and Justice Frankfurter provided the device by coming up he drafted these five questions which they issued as their order. The other thing they did, which is significant in that same June 8 th period, was to invite the new administration, Ike President

530 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW [Vol.78:515 Eisenhower s administration had just begun and they invited, almost directed, the new administration to file a brief with respect to it and take a position on it. In this new book that just came out, Black, White and Brown, issued this week, Herb Brownell, who was the Attorney General at the time, has a very interesting and illuminating piece telling about what happened at the White House when they were advised that they should participate in this. It required the administration to take a position and Herb Brownell was very important in convincing the President that they should take a position and that they should oppose school segregation. That s a nice segue. Much of our discussion obviously is going to be legal in nature the Court s work, of course, is legal in nature but it is connected to fundamental social realities and politics. Where were your Justices, as men, on segregation, as you understood them at the starts of your clerkships? I understood, not directly from Vinson, that he was opposed to overruling Plessy v. Ferguson. Not because he was a racist, but rather because of his belief that a decision that had lasted that long should not be overturned by the Supreme Court, that as a matter of stare decisis it should be done through action by Congress or possibly constitutional amendment. I think it was essentially a matter of judicial process that motivated him to take that view, which in a way was something that also, of course, concerned both Frankfurter and Jackson, although they ultimately took quite a different view. Right. Frank?

2004] LAW CLERKS RECALL BROWN 531 Sander: Well I just wanted to add this footnote. I think that is exactly right, what Earl says, because I remember coming to work on September 8 th and in the elevator the operator said, Do you know what just happened? And I said, No. He said that Chief Justice Vinson died. And shortly thereafter Frankfurter got off his now-famous line: that s the first time he believed in God. So, this rather suggests that Vinson was clearly in favor of upholding Plessy v. Ferguson and that Frankfurter thought this was a whole new era that was being ushered in. I think he said this before the other side of the coin came in, i.e., the appointment of Earl Warren, which was the other really important thing. Frank, I think that that statement of Frankfurter s was made at Vinson s memorial service to Phil Elman, another distinguished clerk of Frankfurter s, and I think it was not directed solely at the matter of how Vinson was expected to vote, but rather Frankfurter s belief that at long last there could be a Chief Justice who was capable of welding the different factions together something that, unfortunately, Vinson had not been able to do. It was very much of a fractured Court under Vinson, and I think Frankfurter saw the Warren appointment as a chance to overcome that. A number of people have written, and Earl has just stated, the view that Jackson seemed originally to be in favor of upholding Plessy, not striking down segregation, and then came around and changed his view. I think I disagree with that. I don t think that s what happened and I think that his unpublished concurring opinion demonstrates it. At that first conference everybody was expressing his opinion and a number of Justices, including Douglas, wrote down that Jackson appeared to be in that school.

532 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW [Vol.78:515 Actually, Jackson, being a very, very, very practical person, recognized that school segregation was going to be struck down and he was willing to go along with that, but he was very worried about all kinds of things. He was worried about not giving direction to the district courts as to how they were going to do this. He was worried about what legal ground the Court was going to base this decision on. He was worried that the Court was going to find fault with the school systems, with district court judges, with the South and so forth. And having expressed all these concerns, I think that writers today, and even Justices at the conference, got the impression that he was negative. And lo and behold, the concurring opinion that he finally gave to me was negative in many respects, but only in those respects. His bottom line was that he was going to go along with the majority because he felt that the Negroes had made such an astonishing progress in the years since the Civil War, the most astonishing progress in history, that even if once there had been any grounds for segregating and dividing them based on race, that had long since disappeared, that they were now equal in every respect, and that therefore it was denial of both due process and equal protection to segregate them solely on the basis of the color of their skin. That s how I read that. I do too, and Justice Reed and Justice Jackson were very close together on their thinking on this. Well, except that Reed was going to dissent. He was going to write a dissent, but for the same reason that Justice Jackson referred to in his memo in February where he used the term a ruthless use of judicial power. That was sort of Justice Reed s feeling too his krytocracy thought was the same thing.

2004] LAW CLERKS RECALL BROWN 533 Justice Reed had been much in favor of fairness for the Negro race. He had written the famous Smith v. Allwright decision that did away with the southern white primaries. He had written a couple of other decisions, but he just did not think that the Supreme Court ought to be doing this at the early stages. And so, in that sense they were Well, Justice Jackson would have done a concurrence on that basis. Basically, Justice Reed was going to he was looking for more time. In the conference, he said that Plessy probably has gone by its day and is no longer good law, but we need more time for things to occur. He was a great believer in time taking care of things. And he was worried about a whole bunch of subjects that he would talk to me about What s going to happen to the black teachers in the schools if we outlaw segregation? They won t be able to teach anymore, that sort of thing. We collected more materials on subjects like that in the early months while he was still thinking about this. Now let s introduce perhaps the legal protagonist, Earl Warren, because on that September 8, 1953, Fred Vinson goes home to his apartment, and he watches it wasn t called Monday Night Football at the time, but he watches an exhibition game on television and doesn t live to see the morning. And that vacancy is quickly filled on a recess appointment, without confirmation by the Senate. Eisenhower appoints Earl Warren and has him in place for the Court to begin its Term at the start of October. Earl Pollock is one of the law clerks who I guess inherits a new Chief. Well, I guess that would be one way to put it. I think the other two Vinson clerks and I were in something of a state of insecurity because we didn t know what our future was going to be. We

534 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW [Vol.78:515 were given temporary appointments by Hugo Black until it was determined whether we were to be retained by Chief Justice Warren. Warren did ask us to continue and later he asked me to stay with him for a second year as well. Obviously we know him as Chief Justice Warren, but remind us, as he is being selected by Eisenhower and as he is arriving, who was Earl Warren on the landscape of this country, and what did it mean for him to be the new Chief Justice put on the Court as it was about to start its Term, as it was in the middle of the segregation cases? Warren was a very sharp contrast to Fred Vinson. Both had extensive political backgrounds, but Warren, to use a much-hackneyed phrase, was very much a people person. He would come into a room and he would immediately dominate the scene. He was very impressive physically. He had a big smile. He greeted everyone very warmly, whether it was a messenger or secretary or anybody else that was probably a vestige of his days as a very successful politician. He also seemed to exude a kind of integrity. And he was, by his nature, his very persona, a very persuasive gentleman. People wanted to agree with him. He tended to put people at ease. He had a patience in dealing with people. There was very little throwing his weight around. If anything, he ordinarily showed a high degree of humility, which made it much easier for him to become very friendly with, and to be liked by, the Associate Justices. So he was a Republican governor of California, but he wasn t a muscle-bound, weight-lifting type? [Laughter] No, he wasn t, but he was not only a Republican governor, but, I recall, in the previous election for

2004] LAW CLERKS RECALL BROWN 535 governor he had received the nomination by both the Republican and Democratic parties, indicating the extent of his popularity in California essentially on a non-partisan basis. You mentioned, Frank, the Frankfurter quip it is such a good line that obviously he used it with Phil Elman, yourself and a number of others about Vinson s death indicating the existence of a God. Do you, Barrett and Jack, remember any particular Jackson or Reed reaction to this Vinsonreplaced-by-Warren development and what that would mean in the context of these school cases? Well, I don t remember much from Jackson. Frankfurter was in my office a lot because he was in all of our offices a lot. And I do remember that he was thrilled, there was no question he didn t tell me that quip, but I could tell that he was thrilled. One element I think everything that Earl said about Warren is correct, but one element that you left out is that he was a very tough man. Underneath that affability, he really expected things to be done in certain ways. When he sent out orders in the Court that something was to be changed or whatever, he expected things to move. And I saw him several times where you could tell he was upset and you didn t want to be at the forefront of that anger when he went that way. He sure could stroke you though. I mean, after the decision I recounted the story last night about having a private session with the Chief Justice he called me into his office and put his feet up on his desk and we just chatted, you know, talked about our high schools together. My Justice had already left. He was such a charming man, he

536 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW [Vol.78:515 could really be convincing, and I think that was a very important aspect. As to the question of expectations right after Vinson died, and before Warren, the rumors running around that courthouse on what was going to happen were rife. I mean, Justice Reed told me about some of the things. They didn t know who was going to be appointed. It wasn t certain for quite some time that Warren was going to be appointed, but when the appointment was made Justice Reed was so happy. He thought that was a good appointment. So I think he had some of the same thoughts. He got a little unhappy with his fellow Kentuckian, Fred Vinson, because of the dissension in the Court and the Chief not running the Court tightly enough. And Reed always thought highly of Charles Evans Hughes, the first Chief Justice when he was on board, who really knew how to run the Court, and neither Harlan Stone nor Vinson really did. Sander: Sander: Frank? It s very hard in these fifty-year recollections to know whether you re really recalling something or you re making it up? [Laughter] Well not making it up, but attributing backwards something that you know happened as your own reflection I think I find that hard. But I have a very distinct reaction, maybe because I worked for Justice Frankfurter, that it was as if a cloud had been lifted after Warren was appointed. There was much more hope and positive outlook, not necessarily how the case was going to be decided, but that this stalemate had been ameliorated and that good things were going

2004] LAW CLERKS RECALL BROWN 537 to come from Warren s appointment, partly just because of this very impressive personality of Warren s. He obviously was pouring himself into this job and regarded this as his primary challenge. You could argue that almost anybody new would have created something of the same feeling, but it was greatly enhanced by his personality. We had the two occurrences: Vinson died, and then they had the state funeral at the National Cathedral where all of us went by directive. And it was quite an occurrence because we sat right behind our Justices, and in the next row sat President Eisenhower and Mamie and the Vice President and his wife and Harry Truman. Bess wasn t there. And then the Justices went off as a group. I think all of them went to Kentucky for the funeral there and when they came back shortly after, the point was made and the atmosphere was just different. As we look back fifty years and recall these powerful events, I am certain that I wasn t there, but it is a pleasure to be here. We ll take a short break now and resume again in a few minutes. Thank you. * * * Welcome back to the Robert H. Jackson Center. I m John Barrett, and we are gathered here on the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education with four lawyers who were law clerks during the Supreme Court s work in the 1953-54 Term of the Court, producing the Brown decision. We re with Jack Fassett, who was law clerk to Justice Stanley Reed; Earl Pollock, who was law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren; Frank

538 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW [Vol.78:515 Sander, who was law clerk to Justice Felix Frankfurter; and Barrett Prettyman, who was law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson. Now, the fall of 1953 brought the extensive additional briefing that the Court had requested and the preparation, and then in December it brought the second round of oral argument, where these five school segregation cases were reargued to the Court. Were you there for the oral arguments and what do you recall of that forensic moment in this piece of history? I was in the courtroom. The Chief Justice expected any clerk who had been assigned to work on a particular case to be present during the argument. Although I don t recall all the dramatic moments of the argument as much as I would like, I do recall very clearly the argument that Thurgood Marshall made. It was very effective. It was very emotional, not by any means confined to arguments about stare decisis or other technical legal issues, but pointing out, for example, how white and black children who played together, who spent time together, were then suddenly separated along two different tracks once they began their public school education. It was a very effective argument. I don t recall much of Davis s argument That s John W. Davis? John W. Davis, who was then regarded as really the dean of the American bar, probably a man who at that time had argued more Supreme Court cases than anybody else in the country. It was an eloquent argument. But it was, of course, limited by the fact that his position had to rely to a much greater extent than Marshall s on technical legal arguments as to why the Court should defer to the

2004] LAW CLERKS RECALL BROWN 539 doctrine of stare decisis and not undertake to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson after all those years. Well, yes, I heard both of those arguments too. I don t think I heard all of the arguments that were given because it went on over a couple of days, but I do remember those well, and I would add to what Earl just said about John W. Davis, who had incidentally been a presidential candidate at one point: he relied heavily on states rights in addition to stare decisis. And his theme was You have even said in your opinions, Supreme Court, that education is a matter for the states. Educating children is not some big federal thing, it s states rights, it s what the state does, and now all of a sudden you re trying to take away from the state this right to decide where children go to school. Why not leave the matter with the states? which I thought was really very clever, because that appeal did invoke something which a number of the Justices actually believed in. I must say that in my own mind, I thought the die was cast in these cases when they agreed to hear them. It seemed inconceivable to me that, as late as 1954, a majority of the Supreme Court would say that it is still valid under the law to separate children solely on the basis of race when they go to school. So while these oral arguments are always important and while these were very good arguments, I m not sure they dramatically affected in any way the result in the cases. I agree with Barrett on that. It frequently is thought that it was the compelling argument of Thurgood Marshall that caused the Court to decide the case as it did. I think that is quite an overstatement. I agree with Barrett that the argument did not have a substantial effect on changing anyone s mind.

540 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW [Vol.78:515 Not even towards the ultimate unanimity of the Court? I doubt that. I doubt that. I think that many Supreme Court arguments are really more designed to avoid losing than to achieve winning. And I doubt very much whether it had a substantial effect on the ultimate outcome. I agree entirely. I don t think the oral arguments, which spanned the three days of December 7, 8 and 9 of that Term While it was interesting and while it was quite a public drama, I don t think it affected the vote one iota. The interesting things that had happened before then were that on November 1, they filed all these briefs with the answers to the five questions from the June 8 th order at the end of the prior Term. And on November 1, right after that, Justice Frankfurter circulated the long memorandum that Alex Bickel had written on the history of the 14 th Amendment. Those things were what the Justices had studied and though they asked some questions of some of the arguers with respect to that, nobody changed their mind as a result of it. Another thing that happened in between here that is very interesting, that is seldom mentioned on December 1 We remember because it was quite a big day in the life of we young law clerks President Eisenhower and Mrs. Eisenhower reinstated the procedure of a White House reception for the Judiciary, inviting the Justices, and of all things they sent engraved invitations to each of us, I guess, and my wife. And we had to rent white ties and tails and went off and got to shake the hands of the President and Mamie and got to talk with them, and Herb Brownell was there, the Attorney General, and it

2004] LAW CLERKS RECALL BROWN 541 was quite an occasion. But the timing is very interesting: December 1. The argument was scheduled to start on December 7, and there are some stories that go on about the Chief Justice having been taken aside and having had some words said to him during that. It didn t affect the outcome obviously. But as to the oral arguments themselves, like Barrett I was very busy working on other cases, doing a draft of another opinion for Justice Reed, so I couldn t go in there and sit there all day, and the Justice hadn t ask me to. So I went in and out, but it was certain I wanted to be there. I heard part of Thurgood Marshall and part of Spotswood Robinson. We had a special little place where the clerks and secretaries could go in and see and go in and out. Anybody else you had to come in through the main way in the court and it was a real problem to get in for something as in demand as that. I particularly wanted to hear John W. Davis and I did, because, as I concluded law school at Yale, one of the firms that I interviewed with was his. They invited me down to New York and when they heard I had been recommended to go to Justice Reed, the interviewers ushered me into John W. Davis s office. I didn t realize what was going on at the time, but he explained to me how he knew Justice Reed and what a fine gentleman he was and whatnot and hoped I would get it. And there he turned up he was way ahead of me on that one. Think he was doing a little lobbying? It happens, you know. Now the Court s procedure and it s important to remember that the Court is not only dealing with

542 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW [Vol.78:515 Brown v. Board of Education during this or any Term after hearing oral argument is for the Justices alone to meet in conference to discuss and vote and then assign opinion-writing responsibilities. And so after that oral argument over those three days, the Court has a conference and the Justices emerge and something is in the process of having been decided or being done with the school segregation cases. Frank, did you have any understanding of the conference and its result? Sander: Sander: It s one of these questions that I know the answer to now but didn t then, so I don t want to recreate history. Any question is like that I guess I want to say we are getting a little false picture of the involvement of the law clerks. The three gentlemen that are sharing the platform with me, law clerks, were exceptions. The general rule of the Supreme Court was that law clerks would have no role in this decision because even then, the fear of leakage would be so serious. So there were some violations of that by some Justices, including my own, but Not that there was a report of what happened at the conference, which often Justices discussed with their law clerks afterwards, but not in this case. Was it true for the other three of you that there was an information blackout about these cases coming out of that conference, or did you come to understand where the Court was heading? It was common knowledge that this was very close to the vest and only the people directly involved should have anything to do with it. I didn t know Barrett was directly involved. We never discussed

2004] LAW CLERKS RECALL BROWN 543 it at the time. I didn t know who was working on it for the Chief Justice. But Justice Reed had fingered me to be the one working with him and I d been working with him since the summer on what he was thinking about doing. But the secrecy was very strict and most of the law clerks had no idea what was going on. And the December 12 conference, when they came back, I assumed They always had the conferences on Saturday afternoons in those days. When they came back, he d open his docket book and tell us what had occurred. But nothing with respect to the segregation cases. They had no vote. They decided at that occasion that they would not have a vote. They d continue to talk about it until they got to a stage where there could be a vote. And I think one reason for that is that, as you mentioned, Chief Justice Warren was an interim appointment. He had not yet been confirmed by the Senate. And he wasn t confirmed by the Senate until March 1. So the first vote, I m firmly convinced he said in his memoirs that it happened in February, but I m convinced it didn t happen until the first week of March. Sander: I think it was more than that. I think Warren, as a politician, recognized that it was a bad thing to get people to commit themselves I agree with that. before they saw anything on paper. It has to be understood how unusual it was not to take a vote, because it was very customary after an argument that the Justices convened and took at least an initial vote. This was not done in that case, I think, for the very reason that Frank has pointed out. The Chief Justice, I think, recognized, and I m sure other Justices did too, that it would be inadvisable to take a vote that might freeze